To UC Research:

Your request seeking lawsuits and cases in which any officer “was
involved” is vague and fails to identify with specificity or particularity
the precise categories of government records sought, and requires the
records custodian to conduct research to identify responsive records and,
thus, is invalid as drafted.  See Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police Dep't.,
381 N.J. Super. 30, 37 (App. Div. 2005) (“a proper request under OPRA must
identify with reasonable clarity those documents that are desired, and a
party cannot satisfy this requirement by simply requesting all of an
agency's documents”); Lagerkvist v. Office of Governor of State, 443 N.J.
Super. 230, 237 (App. Div. 2015) (OPRA does not require that “the
custodian ‘conduct research among its records ... and correlate data from
various government records in the custodian's possession.’”).  An officer
may be “involved” in both criminal and civil lawsuits/cases in a countless
number of ways (transporting witnesses, providing testimony, etc.).

Accordingly, please clarify whether  you seeking information/records
regarding civil lawsuits filed against Borough police officers.  To the
extent you are seeking this information, please additionally specify
whether you are seeking information/records for particular types of
lawsuits.

Sincerely,

Bryan DiPasquale
Records Bureau 
Elmwood Park Police Department

Dear Taeho Kim,
This is in response to your OPRA request dated May 26, 2020 in regards to
your requested records regarding body cameras deployed by the Borough of
Elmwood Park.

 1. The Borough of Elmwood Park Police Department has 40 (forty) body
cameras currently deployed.

       2. The body cameras were first deployed to members of  the Elmwood
Park Police Department in September of 2014.
       3  Please note we do not have invoices for body cam purchases made
prior to December 23, 2018, due to a ransomware attack that corrupted
Borough records/files. The bulk of body cameras purchased by the Elmwood
Park Police Department were purchased before the ransomware attack. 
     Please confirm receipt of this e-mailed response. 
Respectfully,
Bryan DiPasquale
Records Bureua
Elmwood Park Police Department 

To Erik K.,

We write in response to your Open Public Records Act request dated May 28,
2020. 

The Responsive use of force reports are attached to this e-mail. . The
following redactions have been made to the reports:

• Names of individuals who were subjected to force but were not
arrested.  See O'Shea v. Twp. of W. Milford, 410 N.J. Super. 371 (App.
Div. 2009) (upholding the release of use of force reports with
redactions made to names of individuals who were not arrested);
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 (obligation to safeguard citizen’s reasonable
expectation of privacy). See also N.J.S.A. 47:A-3 (requiring certain
information to be released under OPRA when an individual is arrested).
• Names of individuals whose medical information/psychiatric condition
appear on the use of force reports. See N.J.S.A.47:1A-1; Executive
Order 26 (“Information relating to medical, psychiatric or
psychological history, diagnosis, treatment or evaluation” is not
subject to public access).
• Names of minors/juveniles. See Digital First Media v. Ewing Twp., No.
A-5779-17T2, 2020 WL 808390 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 19, 2020)
(permitting juvenile Use of Force reports must be released under OPRA,
with redactions made to the minors’ names)

Please confirm receipt of this e-mail. Thank you. 
Respectfully,
Bryan DiPasquale
Records Bureau
Elmwood Park Police Department